I understand how this works for those who just license cores and other portions of the SoC from ARM. But how will this change anything, if it will, with companies such as Apple, that design their own cores, and the rest of their chips, using their architectural licenses, and other iP of their own, such as Apple designing their own GPU?
It will change with ARM's Flexible Access Platform (which we can simply refer to as ARM FAP for ease of use). Note that Apple is still using an ARM core so the fact until they are interested in moving to a newer or more updated design, Apple does not need to bother with the FAP. It's only after ARM pumps out a new design (eg Cortex 800 vs Cortex 801) AND Apple wants to try out said newly pumped out stuff, will the company need to play around with the ARM FAP, testing and experimenting with whatever polishes off the competition in the quickest way possible, before paying the pony through royalties for services rendered per the usual backseat arrangement. The more I think about it, the more I like ARM's new FAP because loads of new stuff will shoot out from the fantasies of engineers everywhere since before FAP, you were stuck buying the cow in order to play with it at all.
Then it's unlikely that Apple will be a FAP participant. If that's even entirely true. Apple might be designing their own junk, but we don't know how much commonality there is between Apple's CPUs and ARM's CPUs. There might be a lot of squishy bits shared between the two and if that's the case and Apple is playing to mess with ARM designs, then being able to FAP for free might be to Apple's benefit anyhow.
Apples full architecture license lets it create any ARMv8.X compatible chip it wants, it's already got that license, as long as it keeps that license up, nothing will change for Apple. they dont use CCI, they dont use are Core AX architecture. they buy the full stack license so they can make their chips ARM compatible, but they dont use the designs in a way that would change with this recent change
The thing you see flying over your head is the point of the joke that, despite being rather low brow, is apparently someplace in the stratosphere above you.
Nothing. This programme is not intended at those segment. It is basically an answer to RSIC-V. Now you don't need high capital and license up front cost to gain those ARM's IP. If you are a startup, or medium business, it will be 10x easier and cheaper to look within those portfolio.
With Server and Apple's SoC, these customer are looking for high performance and are going to spend billions of R&D, the up front cost of licensing isn't the problem.
The ARM IP licensing is permanently broken after what happened to Huawei. Extra effort will be put in design of RISC V solutions & ARM just might end up as we used to joke about years ago selling weapons in the end (X2).
I dont agree with the OP that ARM is about to "end up as a joke" or be replaced by RISC-V, the OP does have a point especially in case of some of these Chinese giants. I can't be denied that the incentive for huawei is greater now to design its own IP. they have found it hard to break into manufacturing side of things, and software like android has big inertia. designing in-house IP like CPU/GPU cores seems something that Huawei could more than pull of and it would get them closer to their semiconductor goals.
That already happened many years ago - Hisilicon have an Arm architecture license and produce their own Arm CPU and server platforms. The US Huawei ban may just accelerate home-grown IP and companies moving out of the US.
In any case given RISC V originates from the US, it would be subject to the same ban, so the OP is completely wrong. A long time ago the US placed the free and open source PGP encryption tool under export control and pursued the writer: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/55023...
u completely misunderstood the pgp case. the author was prosecuted in that case for creating encryption software that the govt couldnt break. which i disagree with but is a complete diff story. in case RISC V, its open source ISA that huawei would be using.
you can't stop china from using linux. you cant charge kernel devs for releasing a legal open source software.
No you are completely misunderstanding it. For some insane reason the US decreed that all encryption software be regarded as "munitions" and were not allowed to be exported out of the US, even if open source and already available outside of the US! It wasn't until 2000 that the restrictions were reduced somewhat. The key part here is that it affects open source software and commercial software equally. Being open and/or free makes no difference. Even today the US needs to be notified before new encryption software is open sourced.
Insane stuff, yes, but it shows the US has not made any exceptions for open source in the past.
What's open, can not be ever closed. Not only it's good against monopoly it's good for security & against all abuses. I know where Berkley is but academic community (anywhere) as such never intended to stand behind any government. This is not an individual or small group of developers we are talking about, India, China and Russia counts in for roughly half of the world & when you add EU, Africa & most of North America it's more like 85%. They all will back RISC V as much as they can. The good old Neal's Jung We Are In Control will finally get out of relevance and Space Cowboys grounded. I just think that if you love something (or someone) you need to let it free.
Funny thing, looks like no one from people hire actually played X2 The Threat. Regarding ARM the Indian example actually best illustrate what I wanted to say.
The trouble is that even after designing one, you still have to produce at least two of them, one for the left and one for the right, in order to determine if the SoCs you made will work with your feet and shoes as intended so I don't see the advantage here.
You can find the best theoretical fit, and add to design to see if fit, before paying. Would allow for a lot more leeway in trying out different designs.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
Back to Article
melgross - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
I understand how this works for those who just license cores and other portions of the SoC from ARM. But how will this change anything, if it will, with companies such as Apple, that design their own cores, and the rest of their chips, using their architectural licenses, and other iP of their own, such as Apple designing their own GPU?Mobile-Dom - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
nothing will change, they'll still need the same uArch license as before.PeachNCream - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
It will change with ARM's Flexible Access Platform (which we can simply refer to as ARM FAP for ease of use). Note that Apple is still using an ARM core so the fact until they are interested in moving to a newer or more updated design, Apple does not need to bother with the FAP. It's only after ARM pumps out a new design (eg Cortex 800 vs Cortex 801) AND Apple wants to try out said newly pumped out stuff, will the company need to play around with the ARM FAP, testing and experimenting with whatever polishes off the competition in the quickest way possible, before paying the pony through royalties for services rendered per the usual backseat arrangement. The more I think about it, the more I like ARM's new FAP because loads of new stuff will shoot out from the fantasies of engineers everywhere since before FAP, you were stuck buying the cow in order to play with it at all.melgross - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
Apple uses their own cores. They do not use ARM cores. That’s the entire point to the architectural license.PeachNCream - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
Then it's unlikely that Apple will be a FAP participant. If that's even entirely true. Apple might be designing their own junk, but we don't know how much commonality there is between Apple's CPUs and ARM's CPUs. There might be a lot of squishy bits shared between the two and if that's the case and Apple is playing to mess with ARM designs, then being able to FAP for free might be to Apple's benefit anyhow.Mobile-Dom - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
Apples full architecture license lets it create any ARMv8.X compatible chip it wants, it's already got that license, as long as it keeps that license up, nothing will change for Apple. they dont use CCI, they dont use are Core AX architecture. they buy the full stack license so they can make their chips ARM compatible, but they dont use the designs in a way that would change with this recent changeid4andrei - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
They don't use ARM's designs but Apple's cores are ARM cores because at the center of their design lies ARM's IP. That's why they pay ARM for.flgt - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
I can’t believe you’re getting serious replies to your post.PeachNCream - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
Neither can I, but the fact that it happened was hilarious.melgross - Thursday, July 18, 2019 - link
Apple designs their own cores from scratch. You don’t understand what an architectural license is.PeachNCream - Thursday, July 18, 2019 - link
The thing you see flying over your head is the point of the joke that, despite being rather low brow, is apparently someplace in the stratosphere above you.ksec - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
Nothing. This programme is not intended at those segment. It is basically an answer to RSIC-V. Now you don't need high capital and license up front cost to gain those ARM's IP. If you are a startup, or medium business, it will be 10x easier and cheaper to look within those portfolio.With Server and Apple's SoC, these customer are looking for high performance and are going to spend billions of R&D, the up front cost of licensing isn't the problem.
ZolaIII - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
The ARM IP licensing is permanently broken after what happened to Huawei. Extra effort will be put in design of RISC V solutions & ARM just might end up as we used to joke about years ago selling weapons in the end (X2).Ian Cutress - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
Not at all. Arm is still happy to be working with Huawei at various levels.azfacea - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
I dont agree with the OP that ARM is about to "end up as a joke" or be replaced by RISC-V, the OP does have a point especially in case of some of these Chinese giants. I can't be denied that the incentive for huawei is greater now to design its own IP. they have found it hard to break into manufacturing side of things, and software like android has big inertia. designing in-house IP like CPU/GPU cores seems something that Huawei could more than pull of and it would get them closer to their semiconductor goals.Wilco1 - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
That already happened many years ago - Hisilicon have an Arm architecture license and produce their own Arm CPU and server platforms. The US Huawei ban may just accelerate home-grown IP and companies moving out of the US.In any case given RISC V originates from the US, it would be subject to the same ban, so the OP is completely wrong. A long time ago the US placed the free and open source PGP encryption tool under export control and pursued the writer: https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/55023...
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
The US/Huawei issue doesn't remove / retract the licence. Huawei can still make its own cores with the architecture.azfacea - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
u completely misunderstood the pgp case. the author was prosecuted in that case for creating encryption software that the govt couldnt break. which i disagree with but is a complete diff story. in case RISC V, its open source ISA that huawei would be using.you can't stop china from using linux. you cant charge kernel devs for releasing a legal open source software.
Wilco1 - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
No you are completely misunderstanding it. For some insane reason the US decreed that all encryption software be regarded as "munitions" and were not allowed to be exported out of the US, even if open source and already available outside of the US! It wasn't until 2000 that the restrictions were reduced somewhat. The key part here is that it affects open source software and commercial software equally. Being open and/or free makes no difference. Even today the US needs to be notified before new encryption software is open sourced.Insane stuff, yes, but it shows the US has not made any exceptions for open source in the past.
ZolaIII - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
What's open, can not be ever closed. Not only it's good against monopoly it's good for security & against all abuses. I know where Berkley is but academic community (anywhere) as such never intended to stand behind any government. This is not an individual or small group of developers we are talking about, India, China and Russia counts in for roughly half of the world & when you add EU, Africa & most of North America it's more like 85%. They all will back RISC V as much as they can. The good old Neal's Jung We Are In Control will finally get out of relevance and Space Cowboys grounded. I just think that if you love something (or someone) you need to let it free.ksec - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
And ARM is not a US Company, but an UK company. Not all ARM patents are US patents.Wilco1 - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
The Huawei ban is anything that contains 25% or more US technology or materials, so the ban affects lots of non-US companies.ZolaIII - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
Funny thing, looks like no one from people hire actually played X2 The Threat. Regarding ARM the Indian example actually best illustrate what I wanted to say.PeachNCream - Tuesday, July 16, 2019 - link
The trouble is that even after designing one, you still have to produce at least two of them, one for the left and one for the right, in order to determine if the SoCs you made will work with your feet and shoes as intended so I don't see the advantage here.RSAUser - Wednesday, July 17, 2019 - link
You can find the best theoretical fit, and add to design to see if fit, before paying. Would allow for a lot more leeway in trying out different designs.